Best Digital Camera and lens under £3000?
Any body lens combination under £3000 (preferably Nikon)
What would you say?
I'd say it depends on what you want/need. If I had that kind of money to spend I'd be tempted to find a gently used D3 and slap a 24-70 f2.8 on it.
However, that may not be what you need at all. Could be you want something a bit discreet in which case this combo is not an option.
That depends really on what you want to do with it. You don't say whether you're a professional photographer, hoping to become one, or an enthusiastic amateur.
I've been a freelance press photographer for almost 20 years, and have done assorted other photographic work as well. My cameras? A 10 year old Canon EOS300D, and an 8 year old Nikon D70s, both of which have 'only' 6MP sensors. I've had front page photographs in both national and local newspapers.
You can spend as much as you like on a camera, but as you will know, its the skill of the photographer and the quality of the lens which does the trick. Could I buy an EOS1000D? Of course, but why, when what I've got works perfectly well?
Depending on what you're using it for, and if you're determined to spend £3k, then the Nikon D3 body will set you back about £1800 second hand. Realistically, I'd go for a cheaper body, and spend the difference on a professional lens. Maybe a D2x second hand body for around £450, leaving you plenty for an excellent lens - what it would be depends on what you want to do with the camera, so without more information, I can't recommend one!
PS I did once buy a brand new body - a Fuji Finepix S2 Pro when it first came out, setting me back £2300, plus another £2k on the lens. Biggest waste of money ever - it was an excellent camera, but within 6 months had been superceded by newer, better models, and was worth less than £800 second hand!
I would suggest you spend 1K on the camera and 2K on the lens/es.
Maybe the D7000. With a zoom and a tele, both F2.8. You can afford it.
You could also get a F1.4 prime. That'll set you up for most photography, but you should work out what you want to do with the camera before buying lenses.
You have a tidy budget, you could also budget for a few accessories like tripod, lights and filters.
£3000 would buy you a lot of camera.
It totally depends on what you want to shoot. Second hand D3 with 24-70 f2.8 would be good for journalists and event photographers, but that's gonna be useless for wildlife or sports.
A D300S with MB-D10 grip with a Sigma 300mm f2.8 would be a good sports setup. You may want a 200-400mm f4 for wildlife.
For landscape, perhaps a clean second hand D700 would be a better compromise as this gives you all the advantages of a D3 sensor, but in a smaller lighter body. Get yourself the 14mm f2.8, or a 16-35mm f4 and a 70-200mm f2.8 VR. Oh and spend £200 on a tripod too. On Canon however, similar money can get you a 1Ds markII, with 17-40mm f4L, and a 135mm f2L, and on top of that a 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 (a much more comprehensive selection of fast lenses).
Canon 5d mk2.
At that price level there few options of body but plenty of options for lenses.
You obviously don't know about cameras or you'd know there isn't a best one.
There's what suits you and your own requirements for the work you do or intend to do.
Some photographers buy a camera because a particular lens is available for it but that lens may be of no use to you.
There's no point over-buying. There are lots of camera owners who couldn't get the best out of or properly understand a camera a tenth of the price than the neck ornament they bought and ask dumb questions about it.
It's like buying a Ferrari and then asking on here for basic driving lessons.
Hundreds of professional studios are running with old Canon 350D 8Mb cameras as their digital option and they have no need to upgrade.
Here is a basic beginner's primer about digital cameras.
http://www.google.com/...rr76GD6Drw